- #1
garyc
- 2
- 0
Firstly, I'm not a physicist nor even particularly clever, so please be gentle with me here : )Like many I have read and struggled to understand Schrodingers Cat and, whilst I've long since rejected the idea of a dead-alive cat (barring a strictly MWI manifestation of such a beast) there are still a few questions.
For example, why on Earth are we beating our heads over superpositions and non-locality when there appear to be NO corresponding observables. Isn't physics about developing and testing theoretic models which are consistent with the observable nature of things ?Q1.
My first problem lies in an understanding of the idea of a superposition of states. If measurement of a quantum particle 'collapses' it into a definate state then how can we suggest that it was ever anything else. I'm certain no experiment has been able to show that such a superposition ever existed and thus, rightly or wrongly, I view the whole superposition argument as excess baggage.
Is it any surprise that we hit problems with non-locality whilst trying to define a phenomenon that we admit cannot possibly be observed ? Thats not science, philosophy maybe, theology possibly ... but it's hardly good science.It seems to me that this superposition argument is more related to MWI (similarly unobservable). In which case the measurement would not so much solidify the state (which would be one of several coexisting but definate states) but rather confirm which state we ourselves inhabited.
As for superpositions and entanglement I have not yet read anything which takes this beyond a purely figurative meaning. There has to be a sensible limit to how far we can pursue pure theory and I'm beginning to feel that we hit that limit a long time ago.
Am I missing something important here ? Is there some experiment which shows the superposition as a measureable (albeit indirectly) phenomenon ? Q2.
I'm familiar with the double-slit experiment, the implied wavefunction and the notion of its collapse into a definate state.
But I find it dificult to class the double-slit experiment as a proof of superposition since there is no requirement that the particle itself is ever in a superposition, just that its 'path' is decided by and subject to some unknown statistical resolution. Certainly, there's not enough evidence to suggest the whole theoretical merry-go-round we currently find ourselves riding.
Is it at all possible that the photon itself simply has no concept of the journey ? If a photon, once ejected, travels by definition at the speed of light what implications does this have on its notion of intervening space. Could it be said that a photon, from its own perspective, does not actually 'travel' at all ?
If so, would this explain the wave-function ? A photon is both emited and absorbed at time t (subjective) and thus does not traverse the experiment in any classical sense ? Whilst such instantaneous translation would appear to be ludicrous in the macroscopic world could the exchange itself be subject to quantum principles ? Has any experiment indicated whether the emission of a photon is entirely dependent upon it also being later absorbed in a predetermined way - Can they be the same event from the photons viewpoint ?
Does any existing theory follow any similar line of thinking ?Of course, light isn't observed to travel instantaneously. I think postulating that instead of the mechanism of lightspeed exchanges being subject to intervening space that rather the concept of intervening space is somehow defined by the mechanisms of that underlying exchange is just as valid as accepting MWI or superposition of states and doesn't seem to bring with it any worries of breaking locality.
Apologies if I'm making no sense at all. I'm just trying to work out whether this is science or sentiment. If its the latter, and it seems to be, then we can all have a go : )
-G
For example, why on Earth are we beating our heads over superpositions and non-locality when there appear to be NO corresponding observables. Isn't physics about developing and testing theoretic models which are consistent with the observable nature of things ?Q1.
My first problem lies in an understanding of the idea of a superposition of states. If measurement of a quantum particle 'collapses' it into a definate state then how can we suggest that it was ever anything else. I'm certain no experiment has been able to show that such a superposition ever existed and thus, rightly or wrongly, I view the whole superposition argument as excess baggage.
Is it any surprise that we hit problems with non-locality whilst trying to define a phenomenon that we admit cannot possibly be observed ? Thats not science, philosophy maybe, theology possibly ... but it's hardly good science.It seems to me that this superposition argument is more related to MWI (similarly unobservable). In which case the measurement would not so much solidify the state (which would be one of several coexisting but definate states) but rather confirm which state we ourselves inhabited.
As for superpositions and entanglement I have not yet read anything which takes this beyond a purely figurative meaning. There has to be a sensible limit to how far we can pursue pure theory and I'm beginning to feel that we hit that limit a long time ago.
Am I missing something important here ? Is there some experiment which shows the superposition as a measureable (albeit indirectly) phenomenon ? Q2.
I'm familiar with the double-slit experiment, the implied wavefunction and the notion of its collapse into a definate state.
But I find it dificult to class the double-slit experiment as a proof of superposition since there is no requirement that the particle itself is ever in a superposition, just that its 'path' is decided by and subject to some unknown statistical resolution. Certainly, there's not enough evidence to suggest the whole theoretical merry-go-round we currently find ourselves riding.
Is it at all possible that the photon itself simply has no concept of the journey ? If a photon, once ejected, travels by definition at the speed of light what implications does this have on its notion of intervening space. Could it be said that a photon, from its own perspective, does not actually 'travel' at all ?
If so, would this explain the wave-function ? A photon is both emited and absorbed at time t (subjective) and thus does not traverse the experiment in any classical sense ? Whilst such instantaneous translation would appear to be ludicrous in the macroscopic world could the exchange itself be subject to quantum principles ? Has any experiment indicated whether the emission of a photon is entirely dependent upon it also being later absorbed in a predetermined way - Can they be the same event from the photons viewpoint ?
Does any existing theory follow any similar line of thinking ?Of course, light isn't observed to travel instantaneously. I think postulating that instead of the mechanism of lightspeed exchanges being subject to intervening space that rather the concept of intervening space is somehow defined by the mechanisms of that underlying exchange is just as valid as accepting MWI or superposition of states and doesn't seem to bring with it any worries of breaking locality.
Apologies if I'm making no sense at all. I'm just trying to work out whether this is science or sentiment. If its the latter, and it seems to be, then we can all have a go : )
-G
Last edited: